Corruption Bill Too Weak

May 08, 2007

After four years of going nowhere, a bill that would revoke the pension of a state or municipal government official or employee found guilty of corruption finally has been advanced by the General Assembly's Judiciary Committee.

It's about time action is being taken.

But rather than an automatic loss of benefits, the legislation sought by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz was weakened to give judges discretion in deciding whether to revoke pensions.

In its latest draft, the proposal lets the state Superior Court decide whether to deny retirement benefits upon conviction. Judges, moreover, would have to weigh several mitigating factors before making that determination.

Although the bill sets no dollar threshold, it essentially says that the smaller the amount that a politician steals, the more consideration he or she should get in retaining a pension. Another provision would allow judges to consider whether the corrupt official, in an effort to gain leniency, cooperated with law enforcement in the conviction of other participants in a corruption scheme. Reduced prison time should be enough compensation.

Judges could also transfer a corrupt official's retirement benefits to a spouse and children, if they determine that the family members would suffer financially when the official goes to jail. That, too, would make little sense if the idea is to use the loss of benefits as a deterrent against corrupt behavior.

In instances where the official or employee is convicted in federal court, state judges wouldn't even consider revoking a pension unless the attorney general specifically petitions the Superior Court.

In weakening the legislation, lawmakers seem to ignore the spate of corruption cases involving local and state officials -- all the way up to governor -- in recent years that sullied Connecticut's reputation.

If lawmakers want to discourage government corruption, they should make the loss of pension benefits automatic upon conviction, whether the defendant is sentenced for his crimes in federal or state court.

Then let the felons argue in court for restoration of those benefits if they feel there are extenuating circumstances to justify it.

There is no match for the certainty of punishment in its ability to influence behavior. The bill under consideration, though perhaps well-intentioned, does not make punishment certain.